muhfuhkuh

Not only that, but this is basically the sales pitch of AI:

Voter: So, tell me about this AI stuff. You wanna build one in my backyard right?

AI CEO: That's right! It'll increase the cost of your water, electricity, and likely lower your property values due to people leaving because of the 24/7 daytime lighting and noise pollution!

Voter: Well I kinda don't like that at all!

AI CEO: Great! Because that's not all! Once we really improve on our AI, it will eat your job for now and forever! And, wait till we embody them in robots. Whoo-boy! You won't even be able to drive a truck or plumb pipes for a living! Ain't that great?

Voter: What? No! That sounds terrible!

AI CEO (thinking): Why can't I get to these schmucks?

It's the economy stupid. If you don't offer material improvement with UBI instead of selfishly flexing your utopian visions of Star Trek robes and replicators and you and only you living for a thousand years, don't be surprised if voters don't give you what you want politically.

The Red Hat or Canonical of vibe-coded/decomp/cloned software is just around the corner.

Slop curators and tech support shoulders to cry on. Could be lucrative.

A travel card that uses Visa Infinite is your best bet here. I have the Capital One Venture X and one of my prime use cases for it (aside from travel upgrades and points transfer) is electronics purchases.

But it does mean "better than the current guy", though. So, he is better. Better than the man before (who started the wars in the ME, but in the countries who didn't plan and execute 9/11 oddly), and better than the man after (who pals around and holds globes together with the country where 80% of the 9/11 terrorists were born).

Ironically, the head of the Dept. of Ed. invested over a hundred million dollars in a debt collection agency that tacks on these usurious fees and rates.

It's like people don't remember that there was a president that called a press conference, spoke to the people, put on a jacket, got in a helicopter, and flew away from the White House forever.

>who uses Snapchat?

You're kidding, right? It passed 300 million monthly users almost a year ago.

We're all tech fuddy-duddies here, still stuck on linkedin and email FWDs, we don't know nuttin' bout dat snap.

> 200000 household income.

You realize the median household income is 50000, right? So, in a small city you have to make 4x the national median to just survive?

Wow, I know the West Coastians live in a well-protected self-imagined bubble, but this comment really brings it to light.

"If someone broke the law trying to get their next meal they would be prosecuted."

Yet, you can't arrest an obese person for possession of Big Macs. You can't bust them eating a rasher of bacon mid-bite and throw them in a cage.

So, addiction to drugs _is_ a criminal issue. They are not treated in the same way. That needs to change.

I live in the Triangle, and driven to such far-flung locales in NC as Advance, Roxboro, and Eden. The people I've interacted with (however limited) are ardently political in the conservative direction for reasons other than fiscal.

Many are hunters, or serve(d) or have family in the armed forces, or just grew up around guns. They remember, before the big-box stores came along, when the town hardware and general stores sold shotguns, rifles, and ammo. They see the liberals in SF Chicago and NYC wanting to stop their multi-generationally deep and rich tradition in hunting and defending and baring arms. If there is one rail that should never be touched, one single-issue that will move that type of voter, it is preserving the 2nd amendment. I mean, sure, you don't have to worship it and Hillary won't have to sit there holding an AKM-74 with 100-round drum mag to pander for votes, but just don't go after it with such vigor and I can bet dollars to donuts that you can win over at least 40% of the voters 1 hour outside the Triangle.

They vote republican not for their non-existent tax breaks or wait in bated breath for their drip of the trickle-down. They're savvy enough that that junk has been tried all over the country and has mostly failed (in the case of Kansas, utterly and miserably with negative job growth). They just don't want you to mess with their traditions.

I mean, these folks don't even care to fight over marriage equality, either. You don't see much gay-bashing in these areas. They simply don't care. Ditto abortion. Sure, there are ardent bible-thumpers, but on the whole, they are nuanced enough to know that we don't want a nation filled with unwanted children.

So, really, don't mess with THEIR rights (guns), and they won't vote against their own interests. I can't get why a lot of democrats (both politicians and voters) can't see that. I _know_ that democrats and liberals are about as far from single-issue voters as you can get, so they'll be kinda-sorta bummed that guns aren't the big focus for legislation, but it would certainly NOT be the end of the world.

>In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?)

Government subsidies, grants and scholarships were absolutely available in massive supply even 20 years ago, when annual college tuition for in-state public schools averaged about 10k (including room & board and books). The student loans didn't make it more expensive; the influx of students did. It's not the kids fault they were sold a bill of goods by their boomer parents, the media, and even employers about college being the only way to avoid fast food or ditch digging as a career.

>I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market.

Then, why is life-saving medicine that USED to be relatively cheap so needlessly expensive? That wasn't government regulation. Turing pharma with Daraprim, KV pharma with Makena, then doxycycline, etc., the list goes on. I think this is one place the government should have (and could have, actually) stepped in but didn't. The invisible hand is so darn arbitrary. Makes computers and flat-screens so dern cheap, but something that can save our life? Nah. Go figure!

Another example. I don't recall diamonds being anything but compressed coal. I don't think it's regulated much if at all (I don't recall the GIA being a government agency). There is no regulated market for it like there is gold and other precious metals. Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?